Eighth Circuit Holds Equitable Tolling Unavailable for the Petition for Review Deadline

The Eighth Circuit has dismissed a petition for review filed by a Guatemalan man challenging only the denial of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, holding that it lacks jurisdiction to review a standalone CAT order and that, in any event, his petition was untimely by roughly five years measured from his final administrative removal order.

The Court held that a CAT order never merges into a final order of removal and so cannot independently support jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), joining the Eleventh and Ninth Circuits. Splitting from the Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits, the Court also held that the thirty-day filing deadline in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) is a mandatory claims-processing rule not subject to equitable tolling, reasoning that Congress's use of "must" and "not later than" and its goal of expediting removal for noncitizens convicted of aggravated felonies rebut the ordinary presumption favoring tolling.

The full text of B.P. v. Blanche can be found here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/09/252778P.pdf

Fourth Circuit Holds Section 1252(b)(1)'s Deadline Is Subject to Equitable Tolling

The Fourth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Salvadoran man who fled MS-13 retaliation after founding an anti-gang youth committee, holding both that his otherwise-late petition should be equitably tolled given the confusion created by the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Riley v. Bondi and that the agency committed multiple errors on the merits of his withholding and CAT claims.

Joining the Sixth and Seventh Circuits, the Court held that nothing in the text, structure, or history of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) rebuts the ordinary presumption favoring equitable tolling of filing deadlines. On the merits, the Court held the agency ignored substantial record evidence that the gang imputed an anti-gang political opinion to the petitioner, erred in its particular social group analysis by requiring "public" visibility and analyzing terms like "witness" and "report" in isolation rather than together, and failed to meaningfully engage with corroborating evidence supporting his CAT claim.

The full text of Navarro Cerritos v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/231897.P.pdf

Ninth Circuit Denies DOJ's Motion to Dismiss Pro se PFR

The Ninth Circuit has denied the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss a pro se petition for review that misstated the date of the agency decision and failed to include the decision with the petition. “Here, the imperfections in Kazarian’s petition did not deprive the government of sufficient notice of his claim or prejudice the government. Even though Kazarian misstated the date of the challenged order as ‘07/16/25’ rather than ‘06/17/25,’ and he did not attach a copy of that order, as § 1252(c) requires, his petition and accompanying stay motion make clear that he seeks review of the BIA’s June 17, 2025, decision upholding his removal order. The government had no trouble finding that ruling and filing it on the docket.”

The full text of Kazarian v. Bondi can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/11/18/25-4427.pdf

Supreme Court Discusses Timing for PFR in Withholding Only Cases

The Supreme Court has determined that the 30-day petition for review deadline is not jurisdictional, but rather, a claims processing rule. In cases involving administrative removal orders (and likely also reinstatement orders), the 30 day timeliness is measured from the issuance of the ICE order, rather than from any dismissal of withholding and CAT applications by the Board of Immigration Appeals. “An order denying relief under the CAT is not a final order of removal and does not affect the validity of a previously issued order of removal or render that order non-final.”

In terms of how a non-citizen will be able to get review of the denial of withholding and CAT, the Supreme Court suggested the following: “the Government can inform aliens of the need to file a petition within 30 days after the issuance of a FARO, and it can alert the court of appeals to the pendency of a withholding-only proceeding so that review there can wait until that issue is decided. And if requests for withholding of removal in cases like Riley’s are decided expeditiously—and that was the whole point of the supposedly streamlined procedure adopted by Congress to effect the quick removal of dangerous aliens—petitions for review of removal orders should not linger long on a court of appeals docket before the withholding issue is ready for review. Finally, if Government makes a general practice of what it has done in Riley’s case, i.e., declining to press for enforcement of the 30-day filing rule, aliens who are mistaken about when a petition for review must be filed will not be hurt.”

The full text of Riley v. Bondi can be found here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1270_new_3dq3.pdf

First Circuit Declines to Apply Mailbox Rule to Untimely Filed PFR

The First Circuit has declined to apply the mailbox rule to a detainee whose petition for review was mailed prior to the filing deadline by his spouse, when the petition did not arrive at the clerk’s office until after the deadline had passed.

The full text of Ramos Goncalves v. Bondi can be found here:

www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1511P-01A.pdf

Ninth Circuit Permits Listing of A Numbers to Identify Petitioners in PFR

The Ninth Circuit has determined that a petitioner’s A number is sufficient identification in a petition for review to comply with the federal rules of appellate procedure. “These ‘A’ numbers are not generic terms referencing unknown and potentially unidentifiable individuals, such as the procedural titles listed in the text of Rule 15, but rather correspond to specific persons who have raised claims before the agency for adjudication and whose names are readily available in the government’s own records, including BIA orders which must be submitted to this court with the petition for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 15-4. “

The full text of Perez-Perez v. Bondi can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/02/10/23-4240.pdf

Ninth Circuit Finds PFR Filing Deadline is Non-Jurisidictional; Clarifies Deadline for Filing PFR of Reinstatement Order

The Ninth Circuit has determined that the 30-day deadline to file a petition for review of a removal order is not jurisdictional. The court has further determined that a petition for review filed within 30 days of the completion of reasonable fear proceedings (rather than the issuance of a reinstatement order) is timely.

The full text of Alonso-Juarez v. Garland can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/09/08/15-72821.pdf

Tenth Circuit Affirms that PFR of Reinstatement Order is Timely if Filed After Completion of Withholding Only Proceedings

The Tenth Circuit has reaffirmed that a petition for review (PFR) challenging a reinstatement order is timely if it is filed within 30 days of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision at the end of the ensuing withholding/CAT only proceeding. The PFR need be filed within 30 days of ICE’s issuance of the reinstatement order.

The full text of Arostegui-Maldonado v. Garland can be found here:

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110897188.pdf